Re: [i2rs] I-D Action: draft-keyupate-i2rs-bgp-usecases-02.txt

["Susan Hares" <[e-mail]>]

Dean:

Thank you for the complete review of version 3.   Great review! 

On readability, Jeff Haas suggest putting all the requirements in the front.
Would that make it better?  It's an easy switch (other than listening to
Jeff say "I told you so").   On configuration persistence, you are correct.
My understanding of the feedback from the WG had been write from I2RS
datastore to configuration datastore.  I will go back and review the posts
from the WG and check with co-authors dynamic memory.  If the intent is
empheral store, then we can use a variant of your text. 

On REQ01/02 - (01) Read/write access  versus  (02) notification and REQ08/09
- (08) Write versus (09) read/notify status --- I agree these could be
combined if the WG desires or split on read/write versus notification. Do
you have any preference? 

On the danger of inserting flow specifications, you are right. However, see
IDR's discussion flow specification for choices.  IDRs argues advanced
features are like a rope, chair and whip - one can either hang oneself or
tame a lion.  

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: Dean Bogdanovic [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 4:03 PM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: t.petch; <[e-mail]>; Keyur Patel (keyupate); Hannes Gredler; Russ
White; Susan Hares; <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [i2rs] I-D Action: draft-keyupate-i2rs-bgp-usecases-02.txt

Susan,

Many people don't know what NLRI abbreviation stands for (Network Layer
Reachability Information , so writing it out first time would be a good
idea. 

Throughout the text, the requirement number sequence is confusing until you
get to the very and where all requirements are listed and then it makes
sense.

REQ04: The ability to interact with various policies configured on
      the forwarding devices, in order to inform the policies
      implemented by the dynamic routing processes.  This interaction
      should be through existing configuration mechanisms, such as
      NETCONF, and should be recorded in the configuration of the local
      device so operators are aware of the full policy implemented in
      the network from the running configuration.
It is not clear to me if your requirement is that dynamic protocols should
impose persistent policies? It says it should be recorded in the
configuration of the local device.

I agree that those policies should be visible to operators and other
applications, but not sure if dynamic protocols should be allowed to
implement persistent policies. IMO, those should be ephemeral policies.
So maybe text should look like this
This interaction should be through existing configuration mechanisms, such
as NETCONF, and should be recorded in the running or ephemeral configuration
of the local device so operators are aware of the full policy implemented in
the network from the running configuration.

I'm trying to see major difference between REQ01/REQ02 and REQ08/REQ09?

In general I'm not sure if changing entries by dynamic protocol in RIB is a
good idea. If you plan to change only what is configured on the local
device, then that is OK, but if you start changing entries that are pushed
from other devices in the network, the system would get unstable. And it
looks to me that REQ09 would allow that.

Dean


On Jun 5, 2014, at 4:47 AM, Susan Hares <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Tom: 
> 
> I'm glad to change the citation in the abstract.    On the authors, this
was
> merge of two drafts. 
> 
> Sue
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: t.petch [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 4:35 AM
> To: Susan Hares; [e-mail]
> Cc: 'Keyur Patel (keyupate)'; Hannes Gredler; Russ White; 'Susan 
> Hares'; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [i2rs] FW: I-D Action: 
> draft-keyupate-i2rs-bgp-usecases-02.txt
> 
> Sue
> 
> Currently you have six authors which is too many for an RFC - someone's
> got to go!   For me, this is not just an admin point - when commenting,
> I like to have one or two names, no more, as the clear pen holders 
> whom I can expect to act.  Too often, with so many names, everyone 
> thinks that someone else will do something and nothing happens, so, in 
> all seriousness, I oppose adoption until you sort this out amongst
yourselves.
> 
> Note too that you have a citation in the Abstract, again not allowed - 
> this can be surprising difficult to get round but get round it you, 
> one or more thereof, must.
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Susan Hares" <[e-mail]>
> To: <[e-mail]>
> Cc: "'Keyur Patel (keyupate)'" <[e-mail]>; "Hannes Gredler"
> <[e-mail]>; "Russ White" <[e-mail]>; "'Susan Hares'"
> <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 7:49 PM
> Subject: [i2rs] FW: I-D Action: 
> draft-keyupate-i2rs-bgp-usecases-02.txt
> 
> 
>> Jeff and Ed:
>> 
>> This updated draft has all the changes that Keyur Patel promised and
> updates
>> to the reference the current i2rs internet drafts.
>> 
>> Would you please do a Working Group adoption call?
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> Sue Hares
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: i2rs [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of 
>> [e-mail]
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 1:44 PM
>> To: [e-mail]
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> Subject: [i2rs] I-D Action: draft-keyupate-i2rs-bgp-usecases-02.txt
>> 
>> 
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
>> directories.
>> This draft is a work item of the Interface to the Routing System
> Working
>> Group of the IETF.
>> 
>>        Title           : Use Cases for an Interface to BGP Protocol
>>        Authors         : Keyur Patel
>>                          Rex Fernando
>>                          Hannes Gredler
>>                          Shane Amante
>>                          Russ White
>>                          Susan Hares
>> Filename        : draft-keyupate-i2rs-bgp-usecases-02.txt
>> Pages           : 17
>> Date            : 2014-06-04
>> 
>> Abstract:
>>   A network routing protocol like BGP is typically configured and
>>   analyzed through some form of Command Line Interface (CLI) or
>>   NETCONF.  These interactions to control BGP and diagnose its
>>   operation encompass: configuration of protocol parameters, display
> of
>>   protocol data, setting of certain protocol state and debugging of
> the
>>   protocol.
>> 
>>   Interface to the Routing System's (I2RS) Programmatic interfaces,
> as
>>   defined in draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture, provides an alternate way
> to
>>   control and diagnose the operation of the BGP protocol.  I2RS may
> be
>>   used for the configuration, manipulation, analyzing or collecting
> the
>>   protocol data.  This document describes set of use cases for which
>>   I2RS can be used for BGP protocol.  It is intended to provide a
> base
>>   for the solution draft describing a set of interfaces to the BGP
>>   protocol.
>> 
>> 
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-keyupate-i2rs-bgp-usecases/
>> 
>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-keyupate-i2rs-bgp-usecases-02
>> 
>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-keyupate-i2rs-bgp-usecases-02
>> 
>> 
>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission
>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>> 
>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> i2rs mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> i2rs mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> i2rs mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs